Appropriate Justice for Terrorists:Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts

FindLaw.com ^ | Sep. 28, 2001 | John Dean

[glock rocks]

a firing squad is good (utah makes use of these).
sticking terrorist's severed heads on posts is good (vlad used this technique to positive results).

thanks for the ping, packrat01.

bump-a-roo

[VOA]

Thanks for the ping!
"Mr. bin Laden, you are to be hanged by the neck until dead. May G-D have mercy on
your miserable soul."
I get excited just thinking about some military tribunal getting the last shot at that jerk!

[Sabertooth]

Since Congress hasn't declared war and there is no Constitutional prohibition against the use of military tribunals to address terrorism such as the September 11th attack, it is imperative for Congress to pass a law authorizing the use of Military tribunals against the terrorists who committed these atrocities.

Here's my problem... I want military tribunals, I totally understand their necessity. But only with a declaration of war. I don't want to set the precedent of suspending due process and our civil liberties without the President and the Congress fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to ask for and grant a formal Declaration of War.

Two things disturb me about the way this war has been conducted:

• It hasn't been formally declared.

• Insufficient attention has been paid to all of the alien non-citizens currently in this country.

I have yet to hear a good reason for either. I haven't even heard any bad reasons.

[Angelique]

I just received word of this this morning, and I have been behind Bush's actions, to include the exemption of attorney-client privilege as far as tapping. We are at war, and in war the rules change, but heaven help us if this is abused. I don't think anyone can forget the pictures of Waco and the Elian raid.

We really have never experienced war on our shores before. One thing, we must now be effective to eradicate terrorism since we have failed miserably in the past. Our legal system has become so convoluted, but nonetheless, it is our legal system. I really do not know the answer, but it seems absolutely absurd that folks who gave to 9-11 victims are paying for the attorneys of those who are accused of declaring war on us. Maybe the Bush administration is ensuring justice will be done. I sure don't want to pay one red cent for the protection of these vermin.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Two things disturb me about the way this war has been conducted:

- It hasn't been formally declared.

- Insufficient attention has been paid to all of the alien non-citizens currently in this country.

I agree. But since Congress hasn't declared war. My problem is this:

1. What happens when the terrorists are apprehended? Do they go through our judicial system just like any common criminal? Who knows, he might even be acquitted or paroled in 15 or 20 years. Most of them are young guys. Fifteen, twenty or even thirty years in jail to a 25 years old is not that bad.

2. Wouldn't this kind of justice applied to a terrorist after the devastated damage inflicted on our nation in fact weaken our image as a superpower in the eyes of the world and as a consequence embolden potential terrorists to continue their wave of terror and destruction?

3. And what does this do to our nation's pride and dignity. Not only have we gone through the pain and suffering of burying over 5,000 of our dead, but justice delayed is justice denied.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for the ping.

Your second statement is well stated: the punishment should fit the crime.

[Snow Bunny]

I am for shooting them as the leave the country. yep , why waste time on trials. hahaahaa....

As the Taliban is leaving .... bangity bang bang bang.But that is just a Bunny's opinion,and we are tuff on enemies of America.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks for the ping, from a fellow packrat. Thank God our President doesn't consult the polls. He is nobody's fool. (^:

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[redrock]

Why do we have a Congress??????

Seems they are not needed since every President seems to pass laws by simply signing 'Executive Orders'.

While a Military Tribunal seems to be OK...(as long as SOMEONE declares war....I REALLY have a problem with the 'Secrecy Part'.

If BIn Laden is captured...he needs to be tried in full view of the public.

redrock

[XBob]

thanks for the ping - I recommend the guilty be put into a 20 ton hydraulic press, then doused with gasoline and set on fire as the press slowly comes down.

[XBob]

my goodness, thanks for the reminder about the gold fringed flag. I had forgotten all about that. However, as they have declared war on us, why are military trials not just fine for the terrorists? They are fine for the military, why not for the terrorist jihad warriors?

[XBob]

30 - "Military tribunals are illegitimate without either a declaration of war or establishment of martial law."

It seems to me that they declared holy war on us, did they not?

[XBob]

did we declare war on the Barbary pirates of Morroco?

[SusanUSA]

Thank you for the ping. This is an excellent and informative article. Will be back to read the replies in the morning.

I do, however, have a question. An honest question, not meant to stir up any anger. I keep hearing we are at war, and now this. But when did Congress declare war?

[Wolfhound77]

"-it is difficult to conceive of a more appropriate procedure to bring them to justice"

Oh no it is not. Let our military hunt them down and kill them where they cower. That would be appropriate.

[MeekOneGOP]

"The Ballot box"

I'm glad you included that.
It never ceases to amaze me that the number of people who actually vote is so low,
but the number of people who complain is always much higher.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." PLATO

Hey, TGCY! Let me tell you a story. Back in the 80s my parents (great people but adamant Democrats no doubt), especially my Mom, were complaining vehemently about Republicans and especially Ronald Reagan. Well, as you well know, you can't use reason to sway Democrats! ;-) I finally asked them, "well who did you vote for, then?" Mom said they didn't vote. So I told her, "Then if you didn't bother to vote, why are you complaining?" Open mouth, insert foot, they started voting! They voted for every Democrat in sight, including bill clintoon. OUCH! So what did I have then? Democrat VOTING parents that STILL complained! LOL!

And STILL we ended up being governed by our inferior for eight years - bill clintoon. . .

[12B]

This needs to be modified. As I understand it this gives the government the right to apprehend, try, and dispose of people without ever telling anybody.

Sounds dangerous to me. What happens if someone like Hillary has this power?

[vannrox]

"...The … enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed … to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals..."

Well said. But, does the destruction of the US Flag qualify as such? In other words, is the destruction of a US Flag evidence that someone is a belligerent? Interesting. I have to say...it could possibly be so..

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

REPOST!

These guys are soldiers out of uniform, have already committed an act of war on US soil, and are clearly hostile to US interests and humanity itself.

######################################################
National Self Defense: The act of defending the U.S.; U.S. forces; and in certain circumstances, U.S. citizens and their property, U.S. commercial assets, other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals and their property, from a hostile act or hostile intent. As a subset of national self-defense, the act of defending other designated non-U.S. citizens, forces, property, and interests is referred to as collective self-defense. Authority to exercise national self-defense rests with the NCA, but may be delegated under specified circumstances; however, only the NCA may authorize the exercise of collective self-defense.

The SROE distinguish between the right and obligation of self-defense—which is not limited—and use of force for the accomplishment of an assigned mission. Authority to use force in mission accomplishment may be limited in light of political, military or legal concerns, but such limitations have no impact on the commander's right and obligation of self-defense.

Once a threat has been declared a hostile force, United States units and individual soldiers may engage without observing a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent. The basis for engagement becomes status rather than conduct. The authority to declare a force hostile is given only to particular individuals in special circumstances.

Appendix A to Enclosure A of the SROE contains guidance on this authority.

104 posted on 11/15/01 12:23 AM Pacific by NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh

The End?